Audit Service Gaps (reverse + competitive)

A targeted loop, not a sweep by default. You take the service as it is today, find where it falls short of the ideal and where it is simply broken or awkward, then for each real shortfall you go look at how a benchmark service solved that exact problem before proposing a fix. The user's own framing:

"현재 서비스 개발 상태에서 북극성 기준으로 부족하거나, 버그가 있거나, 사용자 관점에서 부족한 점을 인지하면 다른 벤치마크 서비스는 이부분을 어떻게 해결했는지를 확인해 가는 거지."

So the work fuses two moves that are usually done separately: reverse-gap (distance from the north-star / ideal) and competitive benchmark resolution (how others closed the same gap). DETECT finds gaps; BENCHMARK closes them. They chain: detect → for each gap, benchmark → propose fix.

Two rules hold across every mode: measure against a named baseline, and do not turn an opinion or an unverified benchmark claim into a fact.

When to use